vanillashaming is the worst and the people who do it deserve every stereotype thrust upon them

Oh, dear. I hope you're not referring to me. I didn't mean to shame anyone at all, I only meant that you should always respect people's limits.

no it is in agreement with what you were saying. there are a subset of altsex blahblah kinky whatever types who really do legitimately cast a shaming eye on people who 'only' have vanilla sex and don't involve kink in their lives and think they are prudes for not opening up their sexuality to true altsexiness and top and bottom roles.

they come in two forms:

1. regular - they just like to think that their kinkiness makes their sexuality betterer or more real and full than people who only have regular ol' sex or *gasp* are asexual or not very sexual at all. nothing special about them, they're just dumb

2. gorean - these guys follow a creed of 'biotruths' from a series of books written by a guy named John Norman that take place in a fantasy world called Gor in which are largely based around the behavioral notion that women desire to and are naturally submissive and so gorean slavery to males is their naturally desired state, and vanillas are just people being wilfully ignorant to this fact otherwise women would always want to get tied up and abused and dominated in complete ownership by males. these people are extremely fucking special

@Samsally: like with anything else, people shouldn't talk to you about their kinks if you've said, "that makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather not talk about it". But no one should censor themselves for fear of someone else "stumbling" onto them. For example, no transsexual person should have to hide because someone else is uncomfortable with them. I think the line is if you're minding your own business, other people need to tolerate.

I don't even know how to reply to this because I feel like you're talking about something totally different than what I was trying to say.

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it. Mental health, to me, should be more important and often gets shoved under the rug under the guise of "you shouldn't kinkshame". Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

I feel like you're talking about something specific but not using specifics. Obviously it's nobody's business what you get up to in your own time with other consenting adults unless you make it their business._________________Samsally the GrayAce

there are a subset of altsex blahblah kinky whatever types who really do legitimately cast a shaming eye on people who 'only' have vanilla sex and don't involve kink in their lives and think they are prudes for not opening up their sexuality to true altsexiness and top and bottom roles.

they come in two forms:

1. regular - they just like to think that their kinkiness makes their sexuality betterer or more real and full than people who only have regular ol' sex or *gasp* are asexual or not very sexual at all. nothing special about them, they're just dumb

2. gorean - these guys follow a creed of 'biotruths' from a series of books written by a guy named John Norman that take place in a fantasy world called Gor in which are largely based around the behavioral notion that women desire to and are naturally submissive and so gorean slavery to males is their naturally desired state, and vanillas are just people being wilfully ignorant to this fact otherwise women would always want to get tied up and abused and dominated in complete ownership by males. these people are extremely fucking special

Aww. I haven't seen a lot of vanilla-shamers before, but I'm guessing it follows the same line of thought that the more sexual you are, the more comfortable with yourself you are (which is silly).

I remember hearing about the whole Gorean thing before! A girl posted some PM's she'd gotten from a stranger. He linked her to a bunch of Gorean nonsense, hurled some insults and told her she'd be happier if she submitted. Of course, she and all the subs in the community had a good laugh before she blocked him. As if you'd want someone who believes in gender roles and disrespects you to be your dom. >.>

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it.

This isn't a BDSM-issue, it's a more general one. When people talk (or write, this is the internet-age), they can be selfish. If they think "talking about this thing in exactly the way I want, no altering my expressions or toning down how graphic the content is is more important to me than whether I'll hurt someone who'll hear or read my words" then they'll act accordingly.
But this isn't only a BDSM-case, it can happen when talking about war, abuse, health issues, erotic content in general, etc. And to be honest, I don't have such an issue with it. The talker/writer is allowed to have his/her own priorities and quite frankly some people value their freedom of expression more than the feelings of others.
Can this be hurtful? Yes.
Is it a shitty thing to do, especially when together with someone who repeatedly tells you they are uncomfortable with it? Certainly.
But is it an acceptable* thing to do? Yeah, it is. The person who's talking is using their own body (or blog, papers, whatever they write on ) to express their thoughts, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I can't tell them they are obligated to value people's feelings over their own desires, when they use their body.

*acceptable, as in "should it be allowed or not"

Samsally wrote:

Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

Yeah, unfortunately I've seen this too. If someone wants to talk on their blog about how they felt watching something and the discomfort they experienced, it's a shitty thing to assault them for it.
However, I should note, it's different to say "I watched this and it made me feel bad like this and this because of that and that" than "I watched this and it made me feel bad because of x reason, therefore this scene (or BDSM in general or whatever) is problematic". Then, I could understand the hate, depending on how generalising the blogger was. Still, I wouldn't espouse such (=the anon hate) behaviour .

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it.

This isn't a BDSM-issue, it's a more general one. When people talk (or write, this is the internet-age), they can be selfish. If they think "talking about this thing in exactly the way I want, no altering my expressions or toning down how graphic the content is is more important to me than whether I'll hurt someone who'll hear or read my words" then they'll act accordingly.
But this isn't only a BDSM-case

I didn't say it was exclusive to BDSM, it's just that we were talking about BDSM and the various levels of acceptance people have for it and I made a point to note the -one thing- about it that bothers me. And that one thing is when people value their ability to talk about something (in this case, BDSM because it's one that has affected me personally) unchallenged over the mental health and wellbeing of the people around them.

Which ~I think~ is a dick move.

Geareye wrote:

...it can happen when talking about war, abuse, health issues, erotic content in general, etc. And to be honest, I don't have such an issue with it. The talker/writer is allowed to have his/her own priorities and quite frankly some people value their freedom of expression more than the feelings of others.
Can this be hurtful? Yes.
Is it a shitty thing to do, especially when together with someone who repeatedly tells you they are uncomfortable with it? Certainly.
But is it an acceptable* thing to do? Yeah, it is. The person who's talking is using their own body (or blog, papers, whatever they write on ) to express their thoughts, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I can't tell them they are obligated to value people's feelings over their own desires, when they use their body.

*acceptable, as in "should it be allowed or not"

At this point you're just assuming I said a whole lot of stuff I really didn't say.

Who said anything about what's -allowed- or not? Jesus christ I'm not the police or your mom, I said I didn't like a thing and then I explained why I think the thing is a shitty thing to do.

Geareye wrote:

Samsally wrote:

Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

Yeah, unfortunately I've seen this too. If someone wants to talk on their blog about how they felt watching something and the discomfort they experienced, it's a shitty thing to assault them for it.
However, I should note, it's different to say "I watched this and it made me feel bad like this and this because of that and that" than "I watched this and it made me feel bad because of x reason, therefore this scene (or BDSM in general or whatever) is problematic". Then, I could understand the hate, depending on how generalising the blogger was. Still, I wouldn't espouse such (=the anon hate) behaviour .

Yeah pretty sure you don't get to tell people how they're 'allowed' to talk about their own trauma. Sending anon hate to someone for criticizing a thing you like is still a shitty thing to do.

Plus, I'm not completely convinced that kinks deserve to be completely bulletproof just on the grounds that people feel bad when you criticize them. People feel bad when you criticize their favorite media, that doesn't mean we should stop. If we stop then everything would stay the same forever and that would be horrible. Media -and- kinks don't exist in a void, they're all things shaped by society and god, society is worth improving.

Like, people need to be able to talk about kinks constructively without getting this knee-jerk "You can't kinkshame, kinkshaming is bad!" reaction.

From what I understand of BDSM (actually good BDSM, not the shit being peddled in 50 Shades or whatever) communication is vitally important. I should hope that extends to discussions about it outside the bedroom, as well._________________Samsally the GrayAce

I didn't say it was exclusive to BDSM, it's just that we were talking about BDSM and the various levels of acceptance people have for it and I made a point to note the -one thing- about it that bothers me. And that one thing is when people value their ability to talk about something (in this case, BDSM because it's one that has affected me personally) unchallenged over the mental health and well being of the people around them.

Which ~I think~ is a dick move.

I think it depends on the medium of communication. Doing this in person, definitely a dick move. Doing it where you are certain there are others who will be negatively impacted. Again, dick move. Doing it on a personal blog, over your social media, or some even something more public when you aren't aware of anyone who will be affected, not really a dick move but maybe inconsiderate depending on the size of audience (The large the audience, the more likely someone will be impacted after all). If someone is affected in that case, apologize for any trauma they may have experienced. Then you've got two choices. Either avoid the thing that caused discomfort, or warn them (politely of course) that you will be continuing to discuss this type of thing and so for their well being it is probably best that they either no longer look at content you produce or find a way to filter it. If possible place an observable warning about content.

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems like that is a good way to do it without being a jerk about it.

Samsally wrote:

At this point you're just assuming I said a whole lot of stuff I really didn't say.

Who said anything about what's -allowed- or not? Jesus christ I'm not the police or your mom, I said I didn't like a thing and then I explained why I think the thing is a shitty thing to do.

I think that was probably just an assumption there since there are people who mean forcible censoring when they talk in a similar manner. Not saying you did, just that some people get that knee jerk reaction. Also not excusing the knee jerk reaction. I dunno, just like understanding.

Samsally wrote:

Yeah pretty sure you don't get to tell people how they're 'allowed' to talk about their own trauma. Sending anon hate to someone for criticizing a thing you like is still a shitty thing to do.

Totally agree. It may be an unpopular stance, but I think that people who do talk about it should try their best to be respectful and calm when explaining it though. I fully understand that it will be an emotionally charged situation, and it may be very hard for the person to do so. Sometimes though, the emotionally charged and disrespectful reactions just cause more problems (even if what is being replied to was extremely disrespectful to start with). Good communication normally yields positive results when both parties are respectful and open. People fail at this a lot for various reasons though, and sometimes people are just dicks.

Not to derail, but I saw a good example of this in some comments somewhere else relating to feminism and how female gamers are treated. A guy basically tried to show his support, but worded it poorly and was attacked for it. His intent was obvious, word choice was poor. At which point he fairly politely expressed frustration because he didn't know how to do it right and again was attacked for this because he said something like "I feel like I can't win." Probably poor word choice, but the second attack caused him to throw his hands up and abandon any future attempts at support. It's not that I don't understand the other side, but it is a case where taking a deep breath and communicating respectfully and calmly would have changed the world ever so slightly in a positive direction.

Samsally wrote:

Plus, I'm not completely convinced that kinks deserve to be completely bulletproof just on the grounds that people feel bad when you criticize them. People feel bad when you criticize their favorite media, that doesn't mean we should stop. If we stop then everything would stay the same forever and that would be horrible. Media -and- kinks don't exist in a void, they're all things shaped by society and god, society is worth improving.

Like, people need to be able to talk about kinks constructively without getting this knee-jerk "You can't kinkshame, kinkshaming is bad!" reaction.

From what I understand of BDSM (actually good BDSM, not the shit being peddled in 50 Shades or whatever) communication is vitally important. I should hope that extends to discussions about it outside the bedroom, as well.

I completely agree here. I will freely admit to being into the BDSM scene (Light B, D, no S or M) and think that discussion and criticism is healthy for anything, no matter what. Again, I think this is a situation where people let there emotions get the better of them. I can't speak for everyone, but I think some of it comes from an overwhelming amount of people having a very negative view of the whole thing. People have to hide it from employers, family, friends, etc because they are often labeled as freaks or that there is something totally wrong with them. While some would think this is no problem since it is something that should be kept in the bedroom, there are some aspects of it that, for some, are a lifestyle and not a purely sexual thing. I'm not talking about the more extreme things, but an example would be something like a Dom/Sub relationship. Some people desire that relationship 24/7. There is something called "being collared" which can be an expression of a more permanent relationship in these instances. I'm not saying discussion should be off limits here, but it is important to understand that people for whom this is the type of relationship they desire can feel personally attacked by the people who go after the whole BDSM thing in a way that is not respectful discussion or criticism.

Yes, there can be issues in the whole thing. The very nature of BDSM does attract some rather unsavory personality types. Its nature can also cause distress in people for various reasons, and those people should definitely steer well clear of it. Safe, sane, and consensual is supposed to be the guiding mantra. Hopefully, someone who really understands and follows that would be very respectful of how they can negatively impact someone else with their actions and try to avoid doing so for the people it distresses.

It is important to understand though, that it is a complex issue where drawing the line is difficult when dealing with what can be done in public forums. The counter argument often heard is to keep it in private, keep it in the bedroom, where no one can see you. People often don't understand how that can be frustrating though. Others make the same argument about to homosexual males kissing in public*. Often the intersection here is not seen.

=possible trigger warning for mild bondage?=

A couple might feel that kissing in public is no different than one person in the couple wearing a collar and cuffs and being led by a leash, or even less so. Me personally, a collar and leash would be equivalent to hand holding.

= end possible trigger =

I don't claim to have the answer here, but hopefully at least gave a bit more understanding.

* I personally get squicked out by any PDA beyond hugging and hand holding and try to avoid looking at it or engaging in it._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

@Samsally: like with anything else, people shouldn't talk to you about their kinks if you've said, "that makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather not talk about it". But no one should censor themselves for fear of someone else "stumbling" onto them. For example, no transsexual person should have to hide because someone else is uncomfortable with them. I think the line is if you're minding your own business, other people need to tolerate.

I don't even know how to reply to this because I feel like you're talking about something totally different than what I was trying to say.

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it. Mental health, to me, should be more important and often gets shoved under the rug under the guise of "you shouldn't kinkshame". Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

I feel like you're talking about something specific but not using specifics. Obviously it's nobody's business what you get up to in your own time with other consenting adults unless you make it their business.

This won't be a popular thing, but if someone is talking about being whipped, for example, in a cafe and another person becomes emotionally traumatised by it, they should probably find a nice cabin in the woods somewhere and retire from civilisation.

This isn't a pretty world, and I can't give a lot of weight to people who become emotionally traumatised simply by occasionally realising the reality of it. I will give some caveats for things like survivors of abuse, but if we're talking about a person who is simply so uncomfortable with BDSM, for example, that seeing a scene on tv ( and unless this TV is somewhere in Japan or Germany, I feel confident it was a fairly tame scene) is enough to discombobulate their entire center of being, then no. I can't see structuring concern around a person with that level of tolerance. There has to be a lower limit on what we can say is outside the bounds of public discussion, or else be bound to the lowest common denominator with regards to tolerance.

@Samsally: like with anything else, people shouldn't talk to you about their kinks if you've said, "that makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather not talk about it". But no one should censor themselves for fear of someone else "stumbling" onto them. For example, no transsexual person should have to hide because someone else is uncomfortable with them. I think the line is if you're minding your own business, other people need to tolerate.

I don't even know how to reply to this because I feel like you're talking about something totally different than what I was trying to say.

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it. Mental health, to me, should be more important and often gets shoved under the rug under the guise of "you shouldn't kinkshame". Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

I feel like you're talking about something specific but not using specifics. Obviously it's nobody's business what you get up to in your own time with other consenting adults unless you make it their business.

This won't be a popular thing, but if someone is talking about being whipped, for example, in a cafe and another person becomes emotionally traumatised by it, they should probably find a nice cabin in the woods somewhere and retire from civilisation.

This isn't a pretty world, and I can't give a lot of weight to people who become emotionally traumatised simply by occasionally realising the reality of it. I will give some caveats for things like survivors of abuse, but if we're talking about a person who is simply so uncomfortable with BDSM, for example, that seeing a scene on tv ( and unless this TV is somewhere in Japan or Germany, I feel confident it was a fairly tame scene) is enough to discombobulate their entire center of being, then no. I can't see structuring concern around a person with that level of tolerance. There has to be a lower limit on what we can say is outside the bounds of public discussion, or else be bound to the lowest common denominator with regards to tolerance.

While I think I understand, and even to some extent agree with, the sentiment of your post, I think you are failing to take some things into consideration and are at the very least being inconsiderate towards people. It may not be a pretty world, but that does not mean that we cannot be civil. For example, if I were to be talking quite loudly about being whipped in a cafe and someone were to politely approach me and say something along the lines of "You are being very loud about a subject which upsets me, could you please either refrain from the subject or lower your voice a bit so that I am not forced to hear it?" I would apologize for upsetting them and attempt to be more aware of the volume of my voice in the discussion from that point on. On the other hand, if I were talking at a reasonable volume where someone would have to be actively listening to the conversation to follow it and a person outside the conversation approached me and asked me to refrain from the subject because it upset them... Well, quite frankly I'd likely be offended. The difference is really how much I am intruding on them. In the first case, I would be forcibly intruding on their space, intentional or not, by being overly loud. In the second case, I am making at least a minimal attempt to not intrude upon others outside of the conversation. At the same time, if someone who is included in the conversation informs me that what I'm talking about upsets them and politely asks for a change of subject, well I politely apologize and change the subject, perhaps after asking for a brief explanation of why because I have an inquisitive mind. It isn't all that difficult.

All that aside, I don't see any reason why anyone should refrain from expressing that they find something disturbing. While in my second case above I said I would be offended, if they did not intrude upon my space and instead chose to express that they were disturbed to someone else I'd have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, if I ran across some blog post from them later and realized they were talking about the specific conversation I was having at the cafe, I'd probably send them a brief apology saying that I did not wish to cause anyone harm and that hopefully it didn't cause them too much distress, as long as the post was not disrespectful towards me (after taking emotional state into account). After all, why the frick not? If a person has shown me respect by not intruding upon my space when I am not intruding upon theirs, and at least understands that I am free to have those conversations, why not show them the same respect by apologizing for unintentionally causing them harm? Would it prevent me from having similar future conversations? Nope, though if I recognize the person in the future I would likely attempt to at least converse at a level it is unlikely they would overhear if I'm in the middle of such a conversation, or avoid the subject if I am not. It's all just very basic respect for your fellow human beings there.

As far as media like television shows, books, video games, etc. I don't see a problem with having a brief warning for things that could upset someone. In the US we have some rating systems in place for that. I don't see a problem with the content being available as long as people can make an informed decision on whether they want to view it or not prior to being hit with the disturbing content. It won't completely shield people, but it is something at least. Why, we could even work towards the parental controls on televisions and cable boxes to be fed more specific information about the content rather than the very basic rating so people could chose what type of content they don't want to receive.

As a brief wrap up, if I understand Samsally's point, I think you misunderstood them. The point seemed to me to be more about someone getting attacked for expressing distress over a scene. I'm not sure how the distress was expressed, because I have seen expressions of distress that go straight over the line to an all out attack on people, but in general attacking someone for saying something distressed them is completely unacceptable behavior. Not saying people should be silenced, but they are certainly in dire need of education on how to respect their fellow human beings.

Edit: I realized I should probably make this absolutely clear, and felt compelled to add this. If the case I mentioned about stumbling across the blog is exceptionally disrespectful, I don't engage the person at all and move on with life with the same respect shown should I recognize them in the future. They are likely venting emotion and what friggin good would come of me engaging them? Give them space and move on. Same damn thing about someone expressing distress in a manner that goes to an all out attack when I was addressing Samsally's point. Unless they are actively attempting to change public policy to bar things, don't engage, give them space, move on. If they are attempting to change public policy, be respectful, collected, and calm in your counter to the change addressing the core issue without attacking the person. If you can't be that, realize your own limitations and find someone who can and let them speak for you._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

@Samsally: like with anything else, people shouldn't talk to you about their kinks if you've said, "that makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather not talk about it". But no one should censor themselves for fear of someone else "stumbling" onto them. For example, no transsexual person should have to hide because someone else is uncomfortable with them. I think the line is if you're minding your own business, other people need to tolerate.

I don't even know how to reply to this because I feel like you're talking about something totally different than what I was trying to say.

My point: The -only- thing about BDSM that bugs me when people value talking about it openly over the mental health of people who could be triggered by it. Mental health, to me, should be more important and often gets shoved under the rug under the guise of "you shouldn't kinkshame". Like literally I've watched people get a shit ton of anon hate when they said a scene on a tv show with dubious consent triggered them and that they don't want to talk about it. That's gross bullshit.

I feel like you're talking about something specific but not using specifics. Obviously it's nobody's business what you get up to in your own time with other consenting adults unless you make it their business.

This won't be a popular thing, but if someone is talking about being whipped, for example, in a cafe and another person becomes emotionally traumatised by it, they should probably find a nice cabin in the woods somewhere and retire from civilisation.

This isn't a pretty world, and I can't give a lot of weight to people who become emotionally traumatised simply by occasionally realising the reality of it. I will give some caveats for things like survivors of abuse, but if we're talking about a person who is simply so uncomfortable with BDSM, for example, that seeing a scene on tv ( and unless this TV is somewhere in Japan or Germany, I feel confident it was a fairly tame scene) is enough to discombobulate their entire center of being, then no. I can't see structuring concern around a person with that level of tolerance. There has to be a lower limit on what we can say is outside the bounds of public discussion, or else be bound to the lowest common denominator with regards to tolerance.

While I think I understand, and even to some extent agree with, the sentiment of your post, I think you are failing to take some things into consideration and are at the very least being inconsiderate towards people. It may not be a pretty world, but that does not mean that we cannot be civil. For example, if I were to be talking quite loudly about being whipped in a cafe and someone were to politely approach me and say something along the lines of "You are being very loud about a subject which upsets me, could you please either refrain from the subject or lower your voice a bit so that I am not forced to hear it?" I would apologize for upsetting them and attempt to be more aware of the volume of my voice in the discussion from that point on. On the other hand, if I were talking at a reasonable volume where someone would have to be actively listening to the conversation to follow it and a person outside the conversation approached me and asked me to refrain from the subject because it upset them... Well, quite frankly I'd likely be offended. The difference is really how much I am intruding on them. In the first case, I would be forcibly intruding on their space, intentional or not, by being overly loud. In the second case, I am making at least a minimal attempt to not intrude upon others outside of the conversation. At the same time, if someone who is included in the conversation informs me that what I'm talking about upsets them and politely asks for a change of subject, well I politely apologize and change the subject, perhaps after asking for a brief explanation of why because I have an inquisitive mind. It isn't all that difficult.

All that aside, I don't see any reason why anyone should refrain from expressing that they find something disturbing. While in my second case above I said I would be offended, if they did not intrude upon my space and instead chose to express that they were disturbed to someone else I'd have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, if I ran across some blog post from them later and realized they were talking about the specific conversation I was having at the cafe, I'd probably send them a brief apology saying that I did not wish to cause anyone harm and that hopefully it didn't cause them too much distress, as long as the post was not disrespectful towards me (after taking emotional state into account). After all, why the frick not? If a person has shown me respect by not intruding upon my space when I am not intruding upon theirs, and at least understands that I am free to have those conversations, why not show them the same respect by apologizing for unintentionally causing them harm? Would it prevent me from having similar future conversations? Nope, though if I recognize the person in the future I would likely attempt to at least converse at a level it is unlikely they would overhear if I'm in the middle of such a conversation, or avoid the subject if I am not. It's all just very basic respect for your fellow human beings there.

As far as media like television shows, books, video games, etc. I don't see a problem with having a brief warning for things that could upset someone. In the US we have some rating systems in place for that. I don't see a problem with the content being available as long as people can make an informed decision on whether they want to view it or not prior to being hit with the disturbing content. It won't completely shield people, but it is something at least. Why, we could even work towards the parental controls on televisions and cable boxes to be fed more specific information about the content rather than the very basic rating so people could chose what type of content they don't want to receive.

As a brief wrap up, if I understand Samsally's point, I think you misunderstood them. The point seemed to me to be more about someone getting attacked for expressing distress over a scene. I'm not sure how the distress was expressed, because I have seen expressions of distress that go straight over the line to an all out attack on people, but in general attacking someone for saying something distressed them is completely unacceptable behavior. Not saying people should be silenced, but they are certainly in dire need of education on how to respect their fellow human beings.

Edit: I realized I should probably make this absolutely clear, and felt compelled to add this. If the case I mentioned about stumbling across the blog is exceptionally disrespectful, I don't engage the person at all and move on with life with the same respect shown should I recognize them in the future. They are likely venting emotion and what friggin good would come of me engaging them? Give them space and move on. Same damn thing about someone expressing distress in a manner that goes to an all out attack when I was addressing Samsally's point. Unless they are actively attempting to change public policy to bar things, don't engage, give them space, move on. If they are attempting to change public policy, be respectful, collected, and calm in your counter to the change addressing the core issue without attacking the person. If you can't be that, realize your own limitations and find someone who can and let them speak for you.

Well there's obviously room for reasonableness both ways. People should evaluate the environment and their level of interaction with it when discussing anything, especially something potentially controversial. As you said, if someone is yelling out some non conventional stuff and someone asks them to keep it down because that stuff freaks them out, I'd say that person was being rude, and if as you say, a person was being quietly conversational with someone and the offended party was actively eavesdropping, they can take a running jump off a pier.

What I was referring to was this idea that certain things were unsafe to expound upon in public where people might come in contact with them. As adults, we've got to have a certain level of survivability, a certain ruggedness that isn't anything to do with being macho, but to do with existing. I expect that of myself and I expect it of other people, and this isn't something unique to me, but is something reflected in the courts, which reject the concept of the overly sensitive person in legal cases of emotional distress. The standard is that of the reasonable person.

There are times when the controversial nature of a topic should be put out in the open, not only with no consideration for those who may be bothered by it, but actively seeking that conflict. A few examples come readily to mind. The gay rights battle in this country has been ongoing for decades now, and it wasn't pushed forward by people who put their affairs in their bedrooms and kept their mouths shut when people were profoundly and sincerely bothered by it.

Another example that is significant is along the lines that Geareye said, and that's war.

We've been involved in a war, several wars actually, for more than a decade. We've also held ourselves aloof from other conflicts in the world, and we largely sanitise the news that gets to the West.

There's a good argument to be made, and one that I subscribe to, that perhaps conflicts we shouldn't be in could be ended if we saw the real toll it takes on our people and on the country we're in, and maybe we'd have people in conflicts where our help legitimately is needed, if the news put pictures of dead raped girls laying by the roadside in the Central African Republic.

We don't see these images because they're shocking, and I find that to be appalling. The reason they're shocking is because they show real horror and trauma being done to human beings right now in this world as we speak. Even as I type this, there are children with AKs walking across fields and into villages and being forced to kill people, there are starving people leaving villages for the hills where they may not even survive because of tribal conflict, and there are people being blown apart by bombs in places I don't ever want to see again. Most people will never see the real pictures from those places, because you have to look hard to find them, and they won't be on the nightly news.

Perhaps if people saw the reality of what's going on, we'd make more informed choices about what to do about it. I do not think the need to be careful of what some have called triggers among individuals should ever be placed above the need for a real objective truth to be out there, and I pale quickly at any discussion that sounds like censorship in order to accommodate sensibilities.